If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

While the call for the blow to the head of Manning is legit.

11-08-2010, 12:16 PM

I see everyone is saying that it should not have been called. I say it should have. No, it didn't endanger him. But there's a more practical reason why the rule exists. The QB is TRYING TO PASS THE FOOTBALL. A blow to the head of a QB, just as with an OT, is going to cause one to blink and loose focus for a split second unlike they regain their faculties. That's not part of the game. A defender can sack, strip the ball, bat passes down, but he can't be allow to smack a QB in the back of the head, especially when he still has the ball in his hand and is looking to pass! I find it amazing that no one else is looking at it from this angle. I will say I don't know about an entire 15 yard penalty, though. Thoughts?

Kaepernick is this years pat white. Thin, gimmick offense and doesn't possess an nfl arm. The ncaa constantly regurgitates clones of past players and amazingly enough, tricks some people into thinking they're better than their cloned half. Kaepernick was a complete waste of a senior bowl qb spot. A better qb will come from the east/west shrine or whatever they're calling it now...count on it

Comment

Are you serious? The defender was trying to strip the ball while getting knocked around by an offensive tackle. Also the goal is exactly to hit the quarterback to confuse him, make him nervous, etc. You're right, the goal isn't to knock him out like a prize fighter, but that wasn't even close to what happened. Are you suggesting they should let the quarterback sit comfortable in space so he doesn't lose focus? That isn't football.

The QB is trying to pass, offensive tackles are trying to block, running backs are trying to run, receivers are trying to catch. You don't stop them with words and scary gestures. You hit them, or you call it a different sport.

Comment

If you are going to try to protect the QB from being hit in the head, you want it to be as black and white as possible. I don't agree with the rule in general because I think QB's are the same as any other player. However, the interpretation of the rule was an unfortunate reality yesterday. Almost cost the Eagles the game and cost gamblers a ton of money. I lost 2 units on that drive alone. Pissed me off...

Comment

Are you serious? The defender was trying to strip the ball while getting knocked around by an offensive tackle. Also the goal is exactly to hit the quarterback to confuse him, make him nervous, etc. You're right, the goal isn't to knock him out like a prize fighter, but that wasn't even close to what happened. Are you suggesting they should let the quarterback sit comfortable in space so he doesn't lose focus? That isn't football.

Getting rid of the rule sets the precedent. Now when DEs get run around a qb, they can just smack them upside the head which would dramatically change the game.

You just can't allow that to happen. What happened to Cole yesterday was **** luck, but the rule in place is valid.

Comment

The refs made the right call based on the rule, but I don't love the rule. That kind of more incidental contact happens on a lot of plays without being called. Actually, if the ref position was the way it was in 2009, they might not have seen it, and the play stands...

Comment

Getting rid of the rule sets the precedent. Now when DEs get run around a qb, they can just smack them upside the head which would dramatically change the game.

You just can't allow that to happen. What happened to Cole yesterday was **** luck, but the rule in place is valid.

No, those rules already exist. Facemask and illegal contact to the face. It's illegal to strike the helmet, it shouldn't be illegal to touch it or brush against it. Especially when it is just a hand that isn't being thrown with the force of a body behind it like a punch or a closeline. There isn't nearly enough force to do damage like that especially when it's a hand doing contact instead of a shoulder pad or the ground.

Thanks to BK for the sig

Comment

I wonder if the same contact happened against Charlie Whitehurst or Matt Cassel or Jason Campbell if the refs would have called it. Did Manning get more protection based on his status? I'm not accusing anything, just trying to see what others think.

Comment

No, those rules already exist. Facemask and illegal contact to the face. It's illegal to strike the helmet, it shouldn't be illegal to touch it or brush against it. Especially when it is just a hand that isn't being thrown with the force of a body behind it like a punch or a closeline. There isn't nearly enough force to do damage like that especially when it's a hand doing contact instead of a shoulder pad or the ground.

Go watch some old Deacon Jones footage and then come back to me and tell me you feel the same way.

Comment

I wonder if the same contact happened against Charlie Whitehurst or Matt Cassel or Jason Campbell if the refs would have called it. Did Manning get more protection based on his status? I'm not accusing anything, just trying to see what others think.

I'm sure Manning got more benefit of the doubt bc it's Manning. It was just one of those unfortunate things that happened during a game. It is what it is.

I have a much bigger issue with illegal contact rules, and many interpretations of roughing the passer much much more than I do of this rule.

It was just an unfortunate situation at the time, but it is what it is. The rule is a solid rule that I have no issue with.